“Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith, and the naive faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which are provided by the myth-maker to keep ordinary person on course.”

“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.”

SilverDoge wrote:One should only be able to have that license plate on a lambo.... obviously.

Don't make me buy a damned lambo! They get crappy fuel mileage, maintenance costs are ridiculous, and my insurance premiums go through the roof. I did almost buy a Tesla Roadster with btc though. Some guy in Seattle was selling one for btc (under 3 btc at the time) back when it was high and I had a ton. Rational mind prevailed at the time though.

It seems that the 10th birthday of bitcoin has produced more studies on its environmental impact:

Extracting a dollar's worth of cryptocurrency such as bitcoin from the deep Web consumes three times more energy than digging up a dollar's worth of gold, researchers said Monday.

There are now hundreds of virtual currencies and an unknown number of server farms around the world running around the clock to unearth them, more than half of them in China, according to a recent report from the University of Cambridge.

What they did: The study estimates that Bitcoin usage emitted 69 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2017, while accounting for just 0.033% of cashless transactions in the same year. They then project future emissions based on a variety of scenarios of growing Bitcoin usage in coming years.

The researchers, from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, found that Bitcoin could be responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to propel climate change past 2°C, or 3.6°F, above preindustrial levels within just the next 11 to 22 years.

Previous responses to energy usage complaints often mention Visa or Mastercard energy usage, but this is the first time I've seen a figure noting the tiny percentage of cashless transactions toward which this energy is directed. That makes the comparison to credit cards much worse, IMO.

I saw lots of push-back on this study, but it was all about the future, not disputing the current usage. Among future assumptions that were questioned: the continued use of fossil fuels and if most of the mining continues to be in countries that use them. So I guess advocates of crypto should be pushing for renewables around the world, or at least in China.

There was also mention of the recent increased efficiency of mining applications, though that is no guarantee of future performance either. Another push-back:

Also, accurately predicting future use of a novel technology is difficult, and many observers expect Bitcoin to serve more as an investment vehicle than a currency.

Also in the above article was something I haven't seen mentioned here, maybe since it's not actually bitcoin, but blockchain. Since many BS members are also collectors, I thought it might be of interest:

CryptoKitties' maker raises $15 million in new funding (CoinDesk)

Why it matters: Amid the explosion of attempts to apply blockchain technology to just about anything, collectibles has been one promising use case.

Though CryptoKitties—a game for collecting and breeding digital cat pets—has faded from the headlines since its initial debut, interest from investors and the company's hints that it's working on something new could mean it's not over. After all, collectibles and gaming are historically huge business.

The above reminds me of pet rocks, which was certainly a fad, not a trend.

jcz1 wrote:It seems that the 10th birthday of bitcoin has produced more studies on its environmental impact:

Extracting a dollar's worth of cryptocurrency such as bitcoin from the deep Web consumes three times more energy than digging up a dollar's worth of gold, researchers said Monday.

There are now hundreds of virtual currencies and an unknown number of server farms around the world running around the clock to unearth them, more than half of them in China, according to a recent report from the University of Cambridge. https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/mining- ... oc-1al4ly1

Bitcoins are created using electricity and computational horsepower. The storage and later re-transmission of renewable yet highly variable power sources such as wind and solar is possible, however it is very expensive.

Stationary electrical plants can reduce the quantity of production, however these plants are most efficient when operating at full output. The sale of excess and underutilized stationary power benefits consumers and decreases the overall environmental expense.

It is stated that the creation of Bitcoin costs 3X the expense of gold extraction, refinement, storage, and transportation, on a dollar for dollar basis. What is not stated is that during past 12 months, the price of Bitcoin has been approximately 5X the price of gold. From a cost-benefit analysis, Bitcoin is the clear winner.

Economically, it costs significantly less to produce an equivalent unit of Bitcoin, vs Gold.

The environmental impact also favors Bitcoin. The typical Bitcoin operation consists of a low-footprint steel building containing server racks and a small kitchen and dormitory area. These operations are extremely clean and generally located in rural areas that provide low cost electricity, ideally from hydro or geothermal sources.

Gold production has a very negative environmental impact, compared to Bitcoin.

Even when producers adopt "best practices", the processes involved consume large quantities of fuel, electricity, water, and acidic chemicals, and produce high levels of air, ground, and water pollution. There is a significant negative impact on the properties being mined, and the health & safety records of even the best companies are abysmal.

Illegal and criminal gold mining operations, usually located in remote sensitive wetlands and rain-forests contribute a significant amount of the world's annual gold production.

jcz1 wrote:A different study:

What they did: The study estimates that Bitcoin usage emitted 69 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2017, while accounting for just 0.033% of cashless transactions in the same year. They then project future emissions based on a variety of scenarios of growing Bitcoin usage in coming years.

The researchers, from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, found that Bitcoin could be responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to propel climate change past 2°C, or 3.6°F, above preindustrial levels within just the next 11 to 22 years.

I can't comment to the study that you mentioned. It does raise some questions such as the source of funding for the study, and if the study has been subjected to critical vetting by impartial review committees.

The following is totally my opinion. I have never heard of UH-Manoa. For all I know, it could be the "Harvard of Hawaii".

I suspect this study was performed by UH-Manoa doctoral students as a research thesis project. The contributing students have a hidden bias agenda, which is to present a document that is congruent with the teachings and beliefs of their professors, in order to earn and complete their doctorate.

It is my belief that there are very few tenured professors in the field of Environmental Studies who are not "liberally-oriented environmental warriors". For the record, I am a conservationist. I share many of the same goals of the environmental warriors, but take a different path to improving practices and outcomes.

jcz wrote:Previous responses to energy usage complaints often mention Visa or Mastercard energy usage, but this is the first time I've seen a figure noting the tiny percentage of cashless transactions toward which this energy is directed. That makes the comparison to credit cards much worse, IMO.

I saw lots of push-back on this study, but it was all about the future, not disputing the current usage. Among future assumptions that were questioned: the continued use of fossil fuels and if most of the mining continues to be in countries that use them. So I guess advocates of crypto should be pushing for renewables around the world, or at least in China.

There was also mention of the recent increased efficiency of mining applications, though that is no guarantee of future performance either. Another push-back: also, accurately predicting future use of a novel technology is difficult, and many observers expect Bitcoin to serve more as an investment vehicle than a currency.

In my opinion, Bitcoin is viewed primarily as a source of wealth, with the ability to perform cross-border transactions. Comparisons to debit and credit cards are meaningless.

Also in the above article was something I haven't seen mentioned here, maybe since it's not actually bitcoin, but blockchain. Since many BS members are also collectors, I thought it might be of interest:

CryptoKitties' maker raises $15 million in new funding (CoinDesk)

Why it matters: Amid the explosion of attempts to apply blockchain technology to just about anything, collectibles has been one promising use case.

Though CryptoKitties—a game for collecting and breeding digital cat pets—has faded from the headlines since its initial debut, interest from investors and the company's hints that it's working on something new could mean it's not over. After all, collectibles and gaming are historically huge business.

The above reminds me of pet rocks, which was certainly a fad, not a trend. ]

No comment.

Thanks for your posting, and the opportunity to provide some feedback. Minor editing for clarity.